ללא מחבר No Author

משענת קנה לבית ישראל

“ידידתנו ובעלת בריתנו” – ארצות הברית

אין מנהיג ישראלי שלא השמיע אמירה זו בתורו, כחלק בלתי נפרד מהתבטאויות הנאותות הדיפלומטית – האומנם כך?

דר’ הנרי קיסינג’ר, יהודי מוכשר וחריף שכל, יליד גרמניה, שימש כיועץ בכיר הלוחש לאזנם של הנשיאים קנדי, ג’ונסון, ניקסון ופורד. קיסינג’ר היה גם ראש המועצה לביטחון לאומי ושר החוץ של ארצות הברית. לקיסינג’ר מיוחסת האמרה: “לאמריקה אין ידידים או אויבים, אלא אינטרסים בלבד” “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”. (אין לו זכות יוצרים על האמרה שצוטטה כבר לפניו).

פרופ’ עזרה זהר הוציא לאור ספר בשנת 1994 – “פילגש במזרח התיכון” – על יחסי ישראל ארצות הברית. לקראת יום העצמאות נצטט מספרו (ציטוט מקוצר וערוך) את מערך היחסים לפני ואחרי שנת הקמת המדינה, 1948.

פרנקלין רוזוולנט כיהן כנשיא ארצות הברית ממש במקביל לעידן הנאצי בגרמניה (1932 – 1945). אין ספק שהנשיא וממשלו ידעו על השתלשלות ההתעללות ביהודים מליל הבדולח ועד ל”פיתרון הסופי” בשנות הארבעים. הנשיא ג’ימי קרטר העניק שי למנחם בגין, תצלומי אוויר מפורטים של מחנה אושוויץ. האמריקאים נמנעו מ”לבזבז” פצצות על האטת מכונת השמדת היהודים בטיעונים שונים והמשיכו בקו ש”היהודים לא מעניינים”. ערב המלחמה הורה הנשיא רוזוולנט להחזיר לאירופה את אוניית הפליטים היהודיים, “סנט לואיס” שהגיעה לחופי אמריקה, ארץ המהגרים. חלקם נספו בשואה.

עם מותו של רוזוולט ב-1945 הושבע הארי טרומן כנשיא עד 1952. משרד החוץ האמריקאי (“מחלקת המדינה”) מאמצת כמעט באופן עקבי, מאז ועד לימינו, עמדה פרו-ערבית. עמדת משרד החוץ שהתנגד להקמת מדינה יהודית, ולאחר הקמתה דרש להצר את שטחה – השפיע רבות על עמדתו הפתלתלה של טרומן.

כל ראשי הצבא האמריקאי אמרו לטרומן שליישוב היהודי בארץ ישראל אין כל סיכוי מול מדינות ערב ותמיכה בהקמת מדינה יהודית עלולה לסבך את ארה”ב. טרומן הודיע במכתב לרבנים אמריקאים (ערב הבחירות ב-1946) על תמיכתו בחלוקת ארץ ישראל ובעליית פליטים יהודיים לארץ ישראל, אך מיד הודיע לבריטים שארצות הברית לא תהיה מעורבת מעשית.

בכ”ט בנובמבר 1947 הצביעה ארצות הברית בעד תוכנית החלוקה, אבל מיד לאחריה הטילה אמברגו על משלוח נשק “למזרח התיכון”. זהו הצעד החמור ביותר שאמריקה נקטה אי פעם נגד ישראל. “המזרח התיכון” זה ישראל! כי לכל מדינות ערב שסבבו את ישראל היו צבאות סדירים מצוידים בטנקים ובמטוסים. לרשות ה”הגנה” היהודית עמדו בעיקר רובים, חלקם מיושנים. כל זאת על רקע הערכות אמריקאיות שצפויה “שואה” שנייה בארץ ישראל. נראה שמשרד החוץ האמריקאי פעל כדי שתחזיותיו על “תבוסת היהודים” יתבררו כנכונות.

בתחילת 1948, בעיצומו של המאבק מול ערביי ארץ ישראל, לחץ משרד החוץ האמריקאי שהמנדט הבריטי יוחלף במנדט של האו”ם במקום חלוקה לשתי מדינות. טרומן סרב בתוקף להיפגש עם נשיא ההסתדרות הציונית פרופ’ חיים וייצמן. טרומן נאות לפגישה רק לאחר שידידו ושותפו לשעבר לעסקים, יהודי בשם אדי יעקובסון, שכנע אותו. הפגישה החטופה (וייצמן הוכנס לבית הלבן מכניסה עורפית) לא הועילה וארצות הברית בעצם נסוגה מתמיכתה בתוכנית החלוקה ובהקמת מדינה יהודית ואף הביאה הצעת החלטה ברוח זו למועצת הביטחון של האו”ם. עקב התנגדות ברית המועצות ומדינות אחרות ההצעה לא הועלתה להצבעה.   

עד למאי 1948 הופעל לחץ אמריקאי כבד על בן גוריון, גם באמצעות ארגונים יהודים אמריקאים, להימנע מהכרזה על הקמת המדינה. אליהו אילת שהיה נציג הסוכנות היהודית בוושינגטון, ולאחר מכן השגריר הישראלי הראשון בארה”ב, כתב בספרו שבכירי הממשל האמריקאי היו האיום החמור ביותר למפעל הציוני וראו בהקמת מדינה יהודית, בחלק קטן של ארץ ישראל, סכנה לאינטרסים האמריקאים.

הניצחונות הצבאיים של ישראל בשלבים הראשונים של מלחמת השחרור יחד עם שנת הבחירות באמריקה שכנעו את טרומן להכיר במדינת ישראל שהוכרזה בהא באייר. גם הכרה זו הייתה מסויגת: ארצות הברית הכירה במדינת ישראל דה-פקטו אך לא דה-יורה. הכרה כעובדה קיימת אך לא מכוח זכות וחוק.

אליהו אילת כותב שאמריקה שלאחר מלחמת העולם השנייה יכלה בקלות למנוע את פלישת צבאות ערב לישראל ב-15 למאי, פלישה שהייתה צפויה. הערבים קיבלו חיזוק מצעדי האמברגו וההיסוס האמריקאי להכיר במדינת ישראל.

המשך לקרוא…

מאתר קו ישר, כאן.

A Modern Student of Asa’s Treaty With Ben Hadad

Bye Bye Bogy: By Moshe Feiglin

May-19-2016

 

The best thing that has resulted from the political storm churning through Israel is the ouster of current Defense Minister Bogy Ya’alon. That was not Netanyahu’s original intent. He wanted to bring the Left into the government, and it is a good thing that Labor MK Shelly Yehimovitz prevented that from happening. My assessment is that the new government will not be qualitatively different from its predecessor and except for a change of style, it will be more of the same. But all of that is behind us now. The most important thing is that Ya’alon was ousted. We can only hope that it is not too late.

Bogy Ya’alon, trumpeted as the new savior by the Right and settlers, turned out to be (surprise, surprise) a strategic disaster for Israel’s security – and no less than that – for the state of its democracy and liberty. I believe Ehud Barak’s testimony that Ya’alon was the man who tipped the scales against an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Such an attack – even if it had failed to achieve its tactical goal – would have restored Israel’s strategic stance according to which the State of Israel was not established to once again rely on US or British pilots. Even if an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities had failed, it would have made it crystal clear that Israel’s strategy is based on the adage of our Sages, “If someone rises to kill you, kill him first” – whether the attacker is a powerful country overseas or a knife-wielding terrorist in Hebron. But Ya’alon preferred the strategy of containment upon which he was raised in his youth on a leftist kibbutz. He upgraded Iran’s world status and opened the door for its great victory over Israel.

Two years ago, during Operation Protective Edge, Ya’alon led the strategy of containment of the Hamas. The political-security echelon, headed by Ya’alon, emitted confused orders, laden with concepts that included everything – except victory. The result was that after almost two months of goal-less fighting, the IDF had suffered 70 casualties in the tunnels and alleyways of Gaza, left two bodies of Israeli soldiers behind – and retreated. Bugy Ya’alon is leaving behind an army that has become the most sophisticated junkyard of modern arms and advanced technology that exists. He leaves behind the largest, strongest and most inflated army that Israel has ever seen. But it is an army that is incapable of winning any battle. Except for the real battle that Ya’alon introduced: the battle against the settlers.

Under the instruction and with the encouragement of Ya’alon, a new stage in Israel’s history has unfolded. Under pressure from the media and the Left, tens of minors were arrested and severely tortured (with the full support of the Jewish Home party) for no reason other than to keep the Left happy with Bogy. The absolute majority of the youth were released without an indictment – but they did suffer serious emotional damage that will likely haunt them the rest of their lives. (Apparently, the house in Duma was burned by the Arab locals, as was the case before and after the event in question).

But worst of all was Ya’alon’s participation in the quiet ‘trend’ of the military coup that was beginning to take form in Israel.

The shooting of the terrorist in Hebron presented Israeli society with a choice between two approaches: The Jewish perspective, according to which the elimination of a terrorist willing to die in order to murder Jews is ethical and imperative –  and the European approach, lacking morality, seamlessly equating  between good and evil: The type of approach that turns Nazis into victims and the Jews into the new Nazis.

The upper echelons of the IDF, educated and advanced over the years on the basis of loyalty to these ideas, suddenly became the great hope of the Left. The soldier from Hebron was turned into a national enemy. The Chief of Staff explained that “If someone rises to kill you, kill him first” is not the IDF’s strategy. The Deputy Chief of Staff equated those who subscribe to that value with Nazis. The radical Left Ha’aretz newspaper rather openly called for a military coup and the Defense Minister, Moshe Bogey Ya’alon, backed up and encouraged this entire process on every stage and at every ceremony.

I have no great expectations of Lieberman. Rightist ideology and power bereft  of clear purpose always becomes  a double-edged sword. It would behoove us all to remember former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was no less rightist and forceful than Lieberman. But all that we can say to Ya’alon is good-bye and good riddance.

From Jewish Israel, here.

The Futility of Democracy

A Libertarian Headline at NRG: “Voting is Meaningless”

I check the headlines every so often for Israeli news, just in case a war breaks out or people have been hurt or killed God forbid and I should know about it. So I opened up NRG this morning and I saw this headline. I didn’t read the article and don’t plan on it:

הזחילה לממשלה: ליברמן הפך לבובה של נתניהו

במבחן הממשי הראשון ליברמן נשבר. ולא סתם נשבר, אלא השתטח עד עפר בפומבי כדי שנתניהו יקרא לו. בסופו של דבר, כולם משקרים את כולם, בכלל זה ראש הממשלה את הציבור, דבר שמעלה תהיות על משמעות הפתק בקלפי

I don’t know about or follow the political mess because the quality of my life diminishes when I try to pay attention to it, but the subtext is very encouraging.

“The crawl to Netanyahu: Liberman has become Netanyahu’s puppet.”

“Liberman has broken on his first real test. And he didn’t just break – he prostrated himself in the dirt in public so Netanyahu would call on him. At the end of the day, everybody’s lying to everyone else, including the Prime Minister to the public, which brings into question the significance of placing a ballot in the ballot box.”

The guy who wrote this is Ariel Kahane. I don’t know who he is but he’s probably your average right winger type.

I wonder if he knows that the sky is blue.

From The Jewish Libertarian, here.

Start With Chumros Mentioned in Shulchan Aruch!

The Clear Thinkers of Jerusalem

Posted by: Gil Student in Magazine, Posts May 9, 16 0

image
by R. Gil Student

The Neki’ei Ha-Da’as of Jerusalem appear a few places in rabbinic literature, always with strict practices that seem to have become normative over time. Who were they and how binding are their stringencies?

I. Who Were They?

Literally, Neki’ei Ha-Da’as means those with clean or pure or clear thoughts, or perhaps pure character traits (like dei’os sometimes means views and sometimes character traits). Rashi (Chagigah 22b sv. neki’ei) says that the phrase means picky or particular (istenis). Perhaps he means that they are very precise in their behavior, taking great care to do things in the best possible way. In the standard edition, the Rambam (Commentary to the Mishnah, Gittin 9:7) explains that the Neki’ei Ha-Da’as were wise. In that specific case, which we will discuss shortly, they minimized their words (Rashi, Gittin 87b sv. neki’ei), which seems both wise and precise. However, Rav Yosef Kafach (ad loc.) has the Rambam’s edition saying Beki’ei Ha-Da’as, experts (see his note 16).

Rav Yehudah Shaviv (in an article titled “Mi-Nekiyus Ha-Da’as Le-Halakhah Ravachas,” n. 11) quotes a debate among historians about the meaning of the term “Neki’ei Ha-Da’as.” Gedaliah Alon (Mechkarim Be-Toledos Yisrael, vol. 2 p. 26) follows the Rambam and explains the term as referring to wisdom and knowledge of life. Alon disapprovingly quotes Shmuel Klein, who thinks the term refers to the nobility of Jerusalem.

Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (Mesilas Yesharim, ch. 10) distinguishes between someone who is nizhar and someone who is naki in the following way: Someone who is nizhar does not commit any obvious sin. However, he is engaged in a constant battle. A naki (which he explicitly connects to the Neki’ei Ha-Da’as in Jerusalem) has completely overcome his desire to sin and therefore has clear spiritual sight.

II. Their Practices

The Mishnah (Gittin 87b) says that while many people, when signing as a witness on a legal document, add after their name that they are a witness, the Neki’ei Ha-Da’as of Jerusalem omitted that apparently superfluous information.

The Gemara (Sanhedrin 23a) says that the Neki’ei Ha-Da’as of Jerusalem would not:

  1. Sign their name to a document unless they knew who else was signing
  2. Sit as a judge on a court until they knew who else would serve on the court
  3. Sit at a meal until they knew who else would sit with them

The Gemara (Sanhedrin 30a) says that the Neki’ei Ha-Da’as of Jerusalem, when serving as judges, had a very orderly process. They insisted that the litigants would each present their cases, then the witnesses would enter and testify, then everyone but the judges would leave while the judges deliberated.

Masekhes Soferim (14:14) teaches that when the Torah was removed from the ark in synagogue, theNeki’ei Ha-Da’as of Jerusalem would walk with the prayer leader holding the Torah, so that the Torah and its holder would not proceed alone.

The Mekhilta (Mishpatim 20 on Ex. 23:1) says that the Neki’ei Ha-Da’as of Jerusalem would not enter a saloon until they knew with whom they would be drinking and would not sign as a witness to a get until they know who else would be signing.

III. Stringencies or Law?

The Rosh (Responsa, 59:1) writes that the practice of the Neki’ei Ha-Da’as of Jerusalem to only sign as a witness to a document after knowing who else will sign is only good advice, not a binding rule (eitzah tovah ka mashma lan). The Chiddushei Ha-Ran (Sanhedrin 23a sv. a”r yehudah) similarly concludes that this is a stringency for those who reach the level of Neki’ei Ha-Da’as, not for everyone.

The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Sanhedrin 2:14) writes that a judge is forbidden to sit on a court until he knows with whom he will be sitting. This implies that the practice of the Neki’ei Ha-Da’as of Jerusalem is binding as law. However, later (ibid., 22:9-10) he rules that it is forbidden to sit on a court with a wicked judge and quotes the practices of the Neki’ei Ha-Da’as of Jerusalem, as if they are stringencies rather than law. From here, it sounds like a judge may sit with someone he doesn’t know, as long as he does not know with certainty that other judge isn’t wicked. The Tur and Shulchan Arukh(Choshen Mishpat (3:4, 7:10) quote these two apparently contradictory rulings. (Note that Shulchan Arukh,Orach Chaim 170:20 seems to quote as a stringency–and not law–the practices of the Neki’ei Ha-Da’asregarding knowing with whom one will eat.)

The Perishah (ad loc., 10) explains that the practice of the Neki’ei Ha-Da’as of Jerusalem is a stringency. When the Tur and Shulchan Arukh write that a judge is forbidden to sit with someone he doesn’t know, they do not mean it as an actual prohibition. The Arukh Ha-Shulchan (Choshen Mishpat 3:7) writes similarly. TheBach (ad loc., 7) rules that this is a law for a great scholar but only a stringency for everyone else.

IV. Contemporary Practice

This became an urgent question in 1948 Egypt, when Rav Ovadiah Yosef was a rabbi in Cairo. The government passed a law that Jewish courts must include lawyers as judges. Since there were no lawyers who were knowledgeable in Torah, the religious court would have to include two rabbinic judges and one Jewishly ignorant lawyer (or 3 rabbinic judges and 2 lawyers). According to the Perishah this court could function because a judge is only advised to refrain, not forbidden, from sitting on a court with someone improper. However, according to the Bach, this is prohibited to a great scholar.

The Pischei Teshuvah (7:23) quotes other explanations of the Shulchan Arukh‘s apparent contradiction. Rav Yonasan Eybeschutz (Tumim, ad loc.) explains that before a case begins, a judge should make sure that he is comfortable with his fellow judges. However, once a case begins, if a judge learns more about his fellow judges, he only must recuse himself from the case if he discovers that another judge is outright wicked (rasha). For anything else, it is only a stringency to drop off the case.

According to Rav Ya’akov Reischer (Shevus Ya’akov 1:137), the law only applies to a judge who does not know any of the other judges. However, if two of the judges know each other as upstanding men, that is sufficient for the rule. It is a stringency to investigate the third judge when the majority of the court will be acceptable.

In Rav Ovadiah Yosef’s case, he felt that it was so clear that the lawyers were not religious that it was forbidden for judges to sit with them on a court, even two Torah scholars who know each with a lawyer as the third member. This was not a matter of Neki’ei Ha-Da’as but the basic law that a judge may not sit on a court with someone non-religious.

In summary, it seems that the practices of the Neki’ei Ha-Da’as are not binding as halakhah, but are stringencies for the pious. They merit consideration because they are important enough to be mentioned explicitly in the Shulchan Arukh.

From Torah Musings, here.

Thorns In Your Sides

Who is the enemy?

 So, All the delusional people who want to believe they can actually differentiate between the leadership of the Arabs and the populations itself (**cough**, ** cough **, nephtuli), a new poll has now come out that shows that 77% of the Arab population supports the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit.

Will those delusional westernized Jews please wake up and realize that we are in a war. Not a war against terror. Not a war against Hamas. Not a war against Hizballa. It is a war against a foreign nation who believes our land belongs to them. They are willing to die (and kill) in order to get their land back and unless we are willing to fight back and realize we are in a REAL war, they will continue making our situation intolerable.

The war is against a violent and evil culture which we must either defeat fully or be defeated.

From Chardal, here.